Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
The Kaleidoscope Model of Food
Security Reform:
Introduction and Applications to Input Subsidy Policies
Danielle Resnick
Motivations and Aims
Since MDGs and Paris Declaration, growing concern with a
“results based agenda” and achieving policy ...
Kaleidoscope Model of Policy Change
Source: Resnick, Haggblade, Babu,
Hendriks, and Mather (2017).
Initial Application to Two Domains
Characteristics of policy
domain
Input subsidies Micronutrients
Evidence base Abundant ...
Suite of Tools
Policy chronologies – process tracing by indicating whether
certain events precipitated subsequent policy c...
Application to Input Subsidy Programs
• Fertilizer Subsidy Program (2008–
present)
o Targeted voucher (2008–2009)
o Waybil...
What Pushed ISPs onto Agenda?
(1) Recognized, relevant problem
• Low use and affordability of
inorganic fertilizer for foo...
What Explains ISP Design?
(4) Knowledge and research
• Less significant in initial design
than in subsequent refinements
•...
Why Were Proposed Design Modalities Adopted?
(7) Powerful opponents vs. proponents
• Initially few opponents
• More pronou...
Does Planned Implementation Actually Occur?
(10) Requisite budget
• Release of promised donor
resources proved critical
(1...
What Motivates Refinements or Reform?
(14) Changing information and beliefs
• Preponderance of research, media
reports, an...
Conclusions and Recommendations
With respect to ISPs
• Improve interministerial cooperation and align budget calendars wit...
We wish to acknowledge the co-authors of the six initial
field studies:
Suresh Babu, Nicolette Hall, Jody Harris, Nicole M...
For More Information, Please Visit
http://foodsecuritypolicy.msu.edu/
www.feedthefuture.gov
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The kaleidoscope model of food security reform: Introduction and applications to input subsidy policies

278 views

Published on

Danielle Resnick
POLICY SEMINAR
What Drives Policy Change? Insights from the Kaleidoscope Model of Food Security Policy
Organized by IFPRI, Michigan State University and University of Pretoria, Consortium partners- Food Security Policy Innovation Lab

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The kaleidoscope model of food security reform: Introduction and applications to input subsidy policies

  1. 1. The Kaleidoscope Model of Food Security Reform: Introduction and Applications to Input Subsidy Policies Danielle Resnick
  2. 2. Motivations and Aims Since MDGs and Paris Declaration, growing concern with a “results based agenda” and achieving policy impact o Motivated greater attention to techniques to evaluate the impact of policy interventions already chosen (e.g., 3ie) How can we better understand where policy decisions emerge in the first place and the possibilities for reform? o Requires a holistic understanding of the underlying policy process o Requires integrating insights from separate food security spheres (agriculture vs. nutrition and public health) Inductively derived the Kaleidoscope Model by uncovering a set of variables, across broad range of scholarship that were consistently important in driving change
  3. 3. Kaleidoscope Model of Policy Change Source: Resnick, Haggblade, Babu, Hendriks, and Mather (2017).
  4. 4. Initial Application to Two Domains Characteristics of policy domain Input subsidies Micronutrients Evidence base Abundant but contested (social science) Abundant and uncontested (medical science) Time frame to impact Short-term Long-term Visibility of response High Low Beneficiaries Targeted Dispersed First movers Domestic governments International donors Interministerial coordination Low High Opportunities for rent seeking High Low
  5. 5. Suite of Tools Policy chronologies – process tracing by indicating whether certain events precipitated subsequent policy changes Policy domain mapping – roles of key actors (e.g., formulation, administration, oversight, or knowledge) Stakeholder inventories – identifies perceived winners and losers and their preferences Circle of influence graphics – aligns stakeholders in a two- dimensional space to map their preferences vis-à-vis a policy with their power Hypothesis testing tables – codes significance of variables
  6. 6. Application to Input Subsidy Programs • Fertilizer Subsidy Program (2008– present) o Targeted voucher (2008–2009) o Waybill system (2010 onwards) • Fertilizer Support Program (2002–2008) • Farmer Input Support Program (2009 to present) o Integration of e-voucher (2015 to present) • Geographical targeted fertilizer subsidies (2003–07) • Pilot targeted voucher (2007–2008) • National Agricultural Input Voucher Scheme (2008–2014)
  7. 7. What Pushed ISPs onto Agenda? (1) Recognized, relevant problem • Low use and affordability of inorganic fertilizer for food staple crops since market liberalization (2) Focusing events • S. African droughts of 2000–2002 • Global food and fuel price crisis of 2007/08 (3) Powerful advocates • Presidents Mwanawasa, Kufuor, and Kikwete • Fertilizer companies (Ghana and Tanzania)
  8. 8. What Explains ISP Design? (4) Knowledge and research • Less significant in initial design than in subsequent refinements • Regional diffusion was prominent (5) Norms, biases, ideology, and beliefs • Where government supply chains had been dismantled during SAPs, private-sector design was more feasible (Ghana/Tanzania vs. Zambia) • Initial sunset clauses reflected donor biases on subsidies (6) Cost-benefit calculations • Low initial economic costs o Borne largely by the donors • Low political costs o Perceived as rural vote buying
  9. 9. Why Were Proposed Design Modalities Adopted? (7) Powerful opponents vs. proponents • Initially few opponents • More pronounced over time but for different reasons (8) Government veto players • Strong presidents often announced programs as a fait accompli to their parliaments (e.g., Ghana, Zambia) (9) Propitious timing • Proved important but in no obvious direction (e.g., ISPs adopted both in advance of and in the aftermath of elections)
  10. 10. Does Planned Implementation Actually Occur? (10) Requisite budget • Release of promised donor resources proved critical (11) Institutional capacity • Delays in transfers from finance to ag ministries • Hugely complex programs at subnational level (12) Implementation veto players • Fertilizer importers could significantly delay or halt the programs if not paid (13) Commitment of policy champions • Much higher in Tanzania and Zambia than Ghana
  11. 11. What Motivates Refinements or Reform? (14) Changing information and beliefs • Preponderance of research, media reports, and parliamentary inquiries in these programs over time (15) Changing material conditions • Creates government receptivity to new information (e.g., macro crisis, end of budget, or project support) (16) Institutional shifts • New presidents, parties, and ministries of agriculture (e.g., Ghana, Zambia)
  12. 12. Conclusions and Recommendations With respect to ISPs • Improve interministerial cooperation and align budget calendars with agricultural planting seasons • Multiple program objectives result in complex program designs that may be inappropriate given weak institutional capacity • ISPs can be a perceived opportunity for vote buying or elite patronage; efforts at reform cannot be achieved through technical arguments alone • Degree of fungibility of donor funding affects donor influence in the design (most in Tanzania, least in Zambia) The Kaleidoscope Model provides an operational framework with testable hypotheses that are applicable across different countries and policy domains • The 16 hypotheses are not always applicable but do offer a maximum set of conditions to consider retrospectively and prospectively • Moves away from silver bullet hypothesizing that implicitly underlies some development interventions
  13. 13. We wish to acknowledge the co-authors of the six initial field studies: Suresh Babu, Nicolette Hall, Jody Harris, Nicole Mason, Elizabeth Mkandawire, David Mather, Stephen Morgan, Flora Nankhuni, David Ndyetabula, Dorothy Nthani, Nic JJ Olivier, Nico JJ Olivier, Phillip Randall and Hettie C Schönfeldt.
  14. 14. For More Information, Please Visit http://foodsecuritypolicy.msu.edu/
  15. 15. www.feedthefuture.gov

×